Millar Elevator Service Company, B-284870.4, December 27, 2000

B-284870.4 Dec 27, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that agency was required to reject awardee's proposal for failing to acknowledge a solicitation amendment is denied where awardee's technical proposal. Other weaknesses were not required to be discussed because they were either insignificant or introduced into protester's proposal following discussions. The evaluation was to be based on six technical evaluation criteria. Which was slightly less important than the technical criteria. Millar and Amtech were the only two offerors that responded to the solicitation. Amtech was again selected for award and Millar now protests the new award decision. We have reviewed the record and find all of Millar's arguments to be without merit. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENT Millar protests that Amtech's offer should have been rejected as unacceptable because Amtech did not acknowledge amendment No. 4. View Decision Matter of: Millar Elevator Service Company File: B-284870.4 Date: December 27, 2000 *Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Millar Elevator Service Company protests the award of a contract to Amtech Elevator Services under solicitation for offers (SFO) No. GS-03P-CDC-00-0006, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for elevator modernization and maintenance in the Moorhead Federal Building in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Millar complains that GSA performed an unreasonable evaluation of its and Amtech's technical proposals, failed to hold meaningful discussions with Millar, and performed an improper price/technical tradeoff. /1/ We deny the protest. The SFO, issued on October 29, 1999, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract, on a best-value basis. The evaluation was to be based on six technical evaluation criteria, listed in descending order of importance--design; maintenance and performance history; modernization experience and past performance; schedule, key personnel and staffing plan; women-owned business, and small disadvantaged business participation in subcontracting--and price, which was slightly less important than the technical criteria. SFO vol. 4, pt. 3, 1.3, 2.2. Millar and Amtech were the only two offerors that responded to the solicitation. A source selection board (SSB) evaluated the technical proposals and the contracting officer evaluated the price proposals. After two rounds of discussions and the submission of first and second best and final offers (BAFO), GSA determined that Amtech's proposal represented the best value, and therefore selected that firm for award. Millar protested the award decision. Following an "outcome prediction" alternative dispute resolution conference conducted at the request of the parties, the General Accounting Office attorney handling the matter advised the parties that there appeared to be errors in GSA's evaluation. Following the conference, GSA proposed corrective action that led to our dismissing the protest. Thereafter, GSA issued amendment No. 4 to make changes to the solicitation, requested third BAFOs, evaluated those BAFOs, and performed a new best-value analysis. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 3, 4. Amtech was again selected for award and Millar now protests the new award decision. Millar challenges the evaluation on numerous grounds. We have reviewed the record and find all of Millar's arguments to be without merit. We discuss Millar's primary arguments below. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENT Millar protests that Amtech's offer should have been rejected as unacceptable because Amtech did not acknowledge amendment No. 4. Where an offeror fails to acknowledge an amendment, the agency is not required to reject the offer if the offeror is otherwise obligated to perform in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. MR&S/AME, An MSC Joint Venture, B-250313.2, Mar. 19, 1993, 93-1 CPD Para. 245 at 5. Amendment No. 4 deleted options 1, 2 and 8 and the asbestos abatement work from the SFO, deleted a requirement for offerors to submit past performance references from the Pittsburgh area, and required offerors to propose an alternate premium finish (specified by the solicitation as Corian) for the elevator cabs. The amendment also requested revised BAFOs, but provided that the agency would consider an offeror's original proposal if it chose not to submit a BAFO. Amtech did not submit a revised technical proposal, and since the amendment had the principal effect of deleting, rather than adding, work, Amtech remained obligated under its unrevised technical proposal to perform all of the work required under the SFO as amended. Further, Amtech did submit a revised price proposal that reflected the work to be performed. It deleted prices for options 1, 2 and 8, and reduced Amtech's total price to account for the elimination of the asbestos abatement work. Amtech's revised price proposal already included a price for the Corian alternate premium finish for the elevator cabs.